William Paley’s Excellent Argument

Posted on by

[note: the author formatted this is a way that did not leave space for a page break. So I am inserting the break at the top — NR]

  1. Paley’s teleological argument is: just as the function and complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, so likewise the function and complexity of the universe implies the existence of a universe-maker. Paley also addressed a number of possible counterarguments:
    1. Objection: We don’t know who the watchmaker is. Paley: Just because we don’t know who the artist might be, it doesn’t follow that we cannot know that there is one.
    2. Objection: The watch (universe) is not perfect. Paley: Perfection is not required.
    3. Objection: Some parts of the watch (universe) seem to have no function. Paley: We just don’t know those functions yet.
    4. Objection: The watch (re universe) is only one possible form of many possible combinations and so is a chance event. Paley: Life is too complex and organized to be a product of chance.
    5. Objection: There is a law or principle that disposed the watch (re universe) to be in that form. Also, the watch (re the universe) came about as a result of the laws of metallic nature. Paley: The existence of a law presupposes a lawgiver with the power to enforce the law.
    6. Objection: One knows nothing at all about the matter. Paley: Certainly, by seeing the parts of the watch (re the universe), one can know the design.
  2. Hume’s arguments against design:
    1. Objection: “We have no experience of world-making”. Counter-objection: We have no direct experience of many things, yet that never stops us from reasoning our way through problems.
    2. Objection: “The analogy is not good enough. The universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable. But both watch and vegetable are ridiculous analogies”. Counter-objection: By definition, no analogy is perfect. The analogy needs only be good enough to prove the point. And Paley’s analogy is great for that limited scope. Hume’s followers are free to pursue the vegetable analogy if they think it is good enough. And some [unconvincingly] do imagine the universe as “organic”.
    3. Objection: “Even if the argument did give evidence for a designer; it’s not the God of traditional Christian theism”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding.
    4. Objection: “The universe could have been created by random chance but still show evidence of design as the universe is eternal and would have an infinite amount of time to be able to form a universe so complex and ordered as our own”. Counter-objection: Not possible. There is nothing random in the universe that looks indubitably designed. That is why we use non-randomness to search for extraterrestrial life and ancient artefacts.
  3. Other arguments against design:
    1. Darwin: “Evolution (natural selection) is a better explanation”. “There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” — The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. Counter-objection: “Natural selection” would be an alternative hypothesis to Paley’s if it worked. But it demonstrably doesn’t, so there is not even a point in comparing the two.
    2. Dawkins: “Who designed the designer?” Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
    3. Dawkins: “The watch analogy conflates the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves with the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes”. Counter-objection: Paley is aware of the differences between the living and the inert and is not trying to cast life into a watch. Instead he is only demonstrating that they both share the property of being designed. In addition, nothing even “arises”. Instead everything is caused by something else. That’s why we always look for a cause in science.
    4. Objection: “Watches were not created by single inventors, but by people building up their skills in a cumulative fashion over time, each contributing to a watch-making tradition from which any individual watchmaker draws their designs”. Counter-objection: Once we establish that the universe is designed, only then we can [optionally] discuss other aspects of this finding (see counter-objection to Hume).
    5. Objection: In Dover case, the judge ruled that such an inductive argument is not accepted as science because it is unfalsifiable. Counter-objection: Both inductive and deductive reasoning are used in science. Paley’s argument is not inductive as he had his hypothesis formulated well before his argumentation. Finally, Paley’s hypothesis can absolutely be falsified if a random draw can be found to look designed. This is exactly what the “infinite monkey” theorem has tried and failed to do (see counter-objection to Hume).
    6. Objection: Paley confuses descriptive law with prescriptive law (i.e., the fallacy of equivocation). Prescriptive law does imply a lawgiver, and prescriptive laws can be broken (e.g., speed limits, rules of behavior). Descriptive laws do not imply a law-giver, and descriptive laws cannot be broken (one exception disproves the law, e.g., gravity, f = ma.). Counter-objection: Of all the laws with known origin, all (100%) have a lawgiver at the origin. The distinction between descriptive and prescriptive laws is thus arbitrary and unwarranted.
    7. Objection: It is the nature of mind to see relationship. Where one person sees design, another sees randomness. Counter-objection: This ambiguity is present only for very simple cases. But all humans agree that organisms’ structures are clearly not random.
    8. Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Counter-objection: Just a corollary: since organisms indeed appear designed, then they are most likely designed according to Occam’s razor.
  4. In conclusion, Paley is right and his opponents continue to be wrong with not even a plausible alternative hypothesis.

Links:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/paleys-argument-from-design-did-hume-refute-it-and-is-it-an-argument-from-analogy/

https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/paley.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

1,308 thoughts on “William Paley’s Excellent Argument”

  1. Nonlin.org: Stop making up stuff. And [a tough one] stop seeing what you WANT to see rather than what it’s there.

    I suppose the only solution is that you actually commit to a position, and clearly articulate what that position is. Once again: If phylogenetic inferences are based on similarity, then why does it group cats and guppies to the exclusion of sharks and lamprey?

    Nonlin.org: The “grouping” we’re debating is not of guppies, but of all organisms.

    Luckily, the same logic applies to all sexually reproducing species. Stop squirming Nonlin. Answer the question.

  2. CharlieM: There is a reason why animals are restricted in the size they can attain and these dinosaurs were at one of the extremes. It pays to be average

    Newton: Not if one is being chased by a faster ,bigger , smarter predator.

    Charlie: You are talking about individuals where the predator has the best chance of picking off the slowest and weakest, I am talking about the survival of the species or kind.

    Because predators only fill their quota, and then stop hunting that species / kind.

  3. colewd: The improbability of new cell types in the paper shows the mechanism chosen in the paper is a non starter. The comparative mechanism should be design which handles the improbability problem of new cell types.

    Nobody knows how to do that, however.

    Would it be possible for you to write an extension to the paper that shows how they should have correctly included the mechanism of design regarding the improbability of new cell types?

  4. Entropy:
    If you define living organisms as any dynamic systems, then by definition life would come from life always by definition. As per those solids, again, transformation, not production. How long do those solids have to be “static” for them not to be considered part of those universal dynamic systems and thus alive/part-of-life?

    I don’t define any dynamic system as a living organism.

    In order to avoid confusion I will restrict the term “living organism” to carbon based life. So we have a nested hierarchy of living entities. All earthly organisms exist within the living entity that is the earth. In its turn the earth lives within the solar system. And so a dynamic system such as a typhoon is actually a process within the earth in the same way that the blood flow spiralling through my heart is a process within my body. The solid components of the earth are never completely static they are always under the influence of earthly forces. It is the same within our bodies, our skeletons are more stable than our circulatory systems.

  5. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    You tell me that stars only transform matter. This is according to the prevailing theories, it is not unquestionable fact.

    Maybe not unquestionable, but for there to be dynamic systems we’d need the energy/matter stuff first. How could nothingness be dynamic?

    Do you agree that energy is more primal than matter? How do you know that above the level of energy there is nothing? Can nothing exist beyond your perception? We do not directly perceive infrared radiation but we can perceive its effects. Those who cannot perceive the formative forces directly can perceive their effects.

  6. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    In order to make sense of the history of the early universe and origin of stars, researchers are forces (should have read forced) to invoke the existence of dark matter.

    Not at all. Dark Matter is a hypothesized stuff to explain gravitational effects that betray the existence of much more matter than what’s “visible.” The early universe thing is about energy-into-matter as the universe coooled-down.

    Well below is an opinion on the role of dark matter in star formation from 2009. I’m not sure how much has changed since then. From Scientific American”

    According to the cosmological models, the first small systems capable of forming stars should have appeared between 100 million and 250 million years after the big bang. These protogalaxies would have been 100,000 to one million times more massive than the sun and would have measured about 30 to 100 light-years across. These properties are similar to those of the molecular gas clouds in which stars are currently forming in the Milky Way, but the first protogalaxies would have differed in some fundamental ways. For one, they would have consisted mostly of dark matter, the putative elementary particles that are believed to make up about 90 percent of the universe’s mass. In present-day large galaxies, dark matter is segregated from ordinary matter: over time, ordinary matter concentrates in the galaxy’s inner region, whereas the dark matter remains scattered throughout an enormous outer halo. But in the protogalaxies, the ordinary matter would still have been mixed with the dark matter.

  7. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    I am happy to agree that there is something being transformed into something else and that there is nothing in existence that just appears from nothing. Even by your preferred theory there would not exist all these heavier elements to form the various compounds and mixtures of today. And do you not believe that energy precedes matter?

    Sure. But energy and matter are different forms of the “same stuff” (I don’t know if the wording should be “same substance”).

    Yes I agree. Looking at the classical elements, the ancient Greeks were of the same mind. Earth, water, air and fire were to them the different forms in which matter exists. This translates to our conception of solid, liquid, gas and heat. But they considered a still higher state, the quintessence, the fifth element. So the first three are material as we experience it, the four, fire, is energy, and the fifth, quintessence, is the aether, the formative life force from which the others have condensed, so to speak. Multiple states of one unified “substance”.

  8. Entropy:

    CharlieM:
    And that is why you will find it so difficult to account for the origin of life.

    Me? I don’t find it difficult at all. We just don’t know the path it followed, the actual history. Your “belief” doesn’t help figuring that history either.

    In my opinion organic life is the condensation from a more etherial state of existence. If living forms were not solid enough to fossilise then obviously their primal existence would not show up in the fossil record. It’s a bit like the old story of the drunk man looking for his keys under the lamppost. You won’t find any fossils of the majority of life forms that did exist because there are no fossils to find. As organisms began to “harden into their forms” then fossil evidence became available.

    The early earth could have been teeming with all sorts of life forms even more diaphanous than jelly fish but how would researchers know?

  9. Alan Fox: If you indeed have a theory (not a hypothesis?) then I’d encourage you to expose it to public scrutiny. It might be the bombshell to shatter the existing paradigm. And if it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, you can discard it and move on. Win-win!

    A new OP would be fine if you are up to the challenge.

    I’m still thinking about it. I don’t want to rush into anything.

  10. Corneel:

    CharlieM: There are external intelligences responsible for the design and construction of a Boeing 747. The intelligence of a living system is an integral feature of it. It comes from within. Living systems do have self-organisational abilities.

    This separates your perspective from that of the IDers around here. Most of the latter seem to think of organs, tissue and biomolecules as machine parts. You have eye for the dynamics within living organisms, so I’ll give you credit for that.

    But you seem to be promoting some form of vitalism, drawing a sharp boundary between living things and “mere matter”. In particular, you oppose the idea of “dead matter self-assembling into living substance”. That boundary does not exist. All matter has internal chemical properties that can guide self-organisation in a very similar way to that observed in living beings. You can call it intelligence if you like, but I just call it chemistry.

    Below is from the book, “Anthroposophy and Science, an introduction”, by Peter Heusser. Here he argues against the view that “it’s just chemistry”. This excerpt comes from the middle of a section in which he is talking about protein synthesis. Its quite a long quote, but I’m not forcing anyone to read it.

    In terms of the conventional mind-set in genetics, it is only possible to speak of a chemical explanation of life if you do not distinguish clearly between information and information carrier, a mistake of which even Crick was guilty. Because it is only what is known as an information carrier, the DNA, RNA, hormonal or other carrier of “information” which is “chemical” or material. the information content is immaterial…

    What the (genetic information) does not contain is the laws for the structural instructions for higher-level structures, shapes, arrangements and functions of the cell organelles, cells, organs and organ systems and for the complex relationships and coordination of the whole organism, as will be discussed further.

    The normal argument against this is that the realisation of many of these structures and functions is dependent on the catalytic function of the enzymes and therefore on the proteins or their structural information in the DNA. But a catalyst facilitates or enables the realisation of a process, it does not define its content or law. This applies in particular to enzymes as catalysts. In terms of the genetic information concept as such, the “information” in the structures of substances or organic compounds formed by the mediation of enzymes cannot be attributed to the DNA, This claim in fact fails to answer the question of where the information comes from…

    If the manifestation of the tertiary structure as presented above is considered as a process of self-organisation, then this can also explain what is meant in scientific terms by the expression “goal-oriented process”. “Goal” is then not a predefined structure in the sense of a mentally anticipated goal of human actions or an anthropomorphically imagined “intelligent design” of god, but the manifestation of a structural law, which may vary in its expression in real terms, corresponding fully with what the substrate and environmental conditions permit. This manifestation is “goal-orientated” despite its potential variability inasmuch as the law can only realise what is contained within it. Its content, a lawfulness of form (causa formalis) is, as that which is to be manifested, the “goal” (causa finalis). This exactly corresponds to the formative and final cause that David Bohm proposed as causal principles for the goal oriented manifestation of “wholes” in physics as well as in biology. The manifestation process as such appears as “self-organisation”. This takes place “from above”, to the extent that the form is impressed on the matter present, i.e. the primary protein strands under specific conditions (causa materialis); and at the same time this takes place “from below”, to the extent that matter and conditions for this manifestation must be present. This is therefore a mutually determining process similar to the formation of inorganic crystals, but in the context of the living organism. It is interesting that Goethe used a similar expression in the organismic context to characterise the nature of the causative agency responsible for manifestation of living organic forms “from above” as did David Bohm in the context of physics: “formative force” (Goethe), “formative activity” (Bohm). Naturally “from above” and “from below” are not to be taken in an extensive spacial sense, but in an intensive, dynamic one: that which gives the law is always of a “higher” order than that which receives it and this is always of a “lower” one.

    I have omitted his references which are given throughout.

  11. CharlieM: The saying around here is is the middle of the road is for yellow lines and dead armadillos.

    I think the best bet is to have a great diversity of life, sometimes side roads go to the best places.

    I said ‘middle road’ not ‘middle of the road’. It pays to keep in the right lane

    It does, especially if you realize which is the right lane before you miss the exit not after.

    It’s a bit like a relay. Some go a short way and remain where they are in support of those who continue, Some help along the way and then veer off as they run out of options. And some tread on a section that hasn’t been trod on until they have come along.

    In other words, lots of options is a good thing?

    Though generally in relays it helps to have the fastest runners if coming in first is the goal.

  12. CharlieM quotes Peter Heusser: In terms of the conventional mind-set in genetics, it is only possible to speak of a chemical explanation of life if you do not distinguish clearly between information and information carrier, a mistake of which even Crick was guilty. Because it is only what is known as an information carrier, the DNA, RNA, hormonal or other carrier of “information” which is “chemical” or material. the information content is immaterial…

    So what separates life from non-life is the transmission of genetic information? Allan will be so pleased to hear. I might even agree with that.

    Now, I don’t presume to understand what Heusser wants to say in the ensuing paragraphs, but it looks a bit like the “where-does-all-that-information-come-from” gambit we have seen coming from IDers. What is your opinion on the idea that natural selection is what puts that information in the genomes of organisms?

  13. CharlieM: I guess the designer had a mischievous side.

    You are thinking like the creationist who believes that God is in His remove heaven guiding the proceedings from the outside.

    Maybe , mostly thinking like someone who understands omnipotent designers can do anything that is logically possible, certainly being mischievous is logically possible. As is guiding things from outside, as is not guiding things from outside, the list is endless.

    Apparently not, maybe the tail was helpful.

    I don’t think that would help preventing any damage caused by the fall itself.

    Seems like there might be evidence in the fossils to support that conjecture.

    Not if one is being chased by a faster ,bigger , smarter predator.

    You are talking about individuals where the predator has the best chance of picking off the slowest and weakest, I am talking about the survival of the species or kind.

    Culling the slow and weak changes the demographics of that species. Perhaps away from the middle road.

  15. ‘course, the information in DNA is definitely of the material variety – the contours and charge distributions of each strand neatly specify the complement. It’s almost magical.

  16. Entropy,

    Nope. It’s about the testability of UCD by the specific thing that K&W kind of checked. Not whether it’s testable by other avenues. In the end they do say that the evidence for UCD is overwhelming. What do you make of that?

    I believe it’s based on the similarities which only explains half the picture. If you only consider natural laws this is the best conclusion.

    Lets circle back to the original issue in that is stating that UCD is a fact is a reach. I would concede that it is a possible explanation of the similarities but does not explain the differences.

  17. Alan Fox,

    I’d be interested in reading what Nathan Lents actually wrote, and the context, if you can provide a link. Mind you, if your paraphrase is correct, I’d agree with him. “Common Design” isn’t a theory and has no evidence to back it up. It can’t be disproven by evidence either. If you allow disembodied “minds” to do stuff without trace or mechanism you leave the realm of science.

    This came out of a verbal conversation with Nathan.

    Common design has been the alternative theory for 150 years. It’s called special creation. The “no evidence” canard is because your hands are covering your eyes. 🙂

  18. Allan Miller,

    Sounding more like a profession of Lents’s ignorance over the evidence (and yours by endorsement) than a statement about it. If common design were on equal footing with descent, we could render all DNA evidence inadmissible in court.

    If you arbitrarily discount Devine intervention what’s left to talk about 🙂

  19. colewd:
    I believe it’s based on the similarities which only explains half the picture. If you only consider natural laws this is the best conclusion.

    What else should we consider and how would we justify such consideration? I cannot write something like “we considered the fantasies written in religious books.” or “we considered the possibility of disembodied minds”. We need a strong foundation to consider disembodied minds. for example, evidence that there’s such things. Otherwise we’re just ignoring what we know to insert fantasy into science. Not a good mix.

    colewd:
    Lets circle back to the original issue in that is stating that UCD is a fact is a reach.

    I don’t think so. It’s conceptually challenging given horizontal gene transfer, but, even if going through networks of inheritance, rather vertical inheritance alone, UCD is still where we would land.

    colewd:
    I would concede that it is a possible explanation of the similarities but does not explain the differences.

    We’ve been through this, so, instead of reexplaining your misapplication of concepts I’ll try and let you explain what you’re thinking: Why should UCD explain the differences? Do you expect to be able to explain the differences between you and your siblings just by knowing that you have the same parents?

  20. Corneel,

    Ah, yes, the old “the information for these structures is not present in the DNA” gambit. My guess is that Heusser is not sufficiently familiar with the activity known as ‘baking‘.

  21. colewd: This came out of a verbal conversation with Nathan.

    What? I was misled by your writing “Nathan Lents over at peaceful science has claimed…”
    I may not be the only one.

    colewd: I would concede that it is a possible explanation of the similarities but does not explain the differences.

    But you were just touting Koonin & Wolfe’s objection to Theobald! To put it in terms that you might be able to understand, K&W’s ONLY point is that the similarities cannot be dispositive for distinguishing UCD from other explanations; they note it is the differences that provide the “overwhelming evidence” in favor of UCD.
    Safe to say you did not understand K&W at all, and are merely parroting…

  23. A. Two members of the same species are adjudged related based on genetic evidence. “Ah, but you have arbitrarily discounted divine intervention”.

    B. Two members of different species are adjudged related based on genetic evidence. “Ah, but you have arbitrarily discounted divine intervention”.

    Is either, both or neither of these challenges to the evidence laughable? I will reveal the species separately.

  24. Entropy,

    What else should we consider and how would we justify such consideration? I cannot write something like “we considered the fantasies written in religious books.” or “we considered the possibility of disembodied minds”. We need a strong foundation to consider disembodied minds. for example, evidence that there’s such things. Otherwise we’re just ignoring what we know to insert fantasy into science. Not a good mix.

    You are labeling the Bible a fantasy. This is an argument from ignorance. There are a lot of reasons to take this book very seriously and I would be happy to work through this if you are willing.

    UCD is still where we would land.

    Its not about landing its about a complete tested hypothesis that takes all the data into account. This is what Koonin realizes is a challenge. We have an inference based on similarities….hard stop. The fact claim is scientism.

    We’ve been through this, so, instead of reexplaining your misapplication of concepts I’ll try and let you explain what you’re thinking: Why should UCD explain the differences? Do you expect to be able to explain the differences between you and your siblings just by knowing that you have the same parents?

    The difference is not me and my siblings its between me and a plant :-). Explaining a plane can fly a 100 ft does not explain it can fly to the moon.

  25. DNA_Jock,

    is the differences that provide the “overwhelming evidence” in favor of UCD.
    Safe to say you did not understand K&W at all, and are merely parroting…

    Where in the paper is this claim made? How do you/they propose the differences provide “overwhelming evidence” for common descent? How does reproduction alone explain new features?

  26. colewd: Where in the paper is this claim made?

    Err, in the bit you’ve repeatedly called a “quote mine” when it is no such thing. You still owe dazz an apology, btw.

    How do you/they propose the differences provide “overwhelming evidence” for common descent?

    Comparative genomics. You will need to read, and understand, Theobald. This seems unlikely.

    How does reproduction alone explain new features?

    “Alone” WTF? No-one thinks that it does. Strawman. Get a grip.

  27. Corneel:

    Charlie: You are talking about individuals where the predator has the best chance of picking off the slowest and weakest, I am talking about the survival of the species or kind.

    Because predators only fill their quota, and then stop hunting that species / kind.

    The balance of nature is a wonderful thing.

  28. DNA_Jock,

    Err, in the bit you’ve repeatedly called a “quote mine” when it is no such thing. You still owe dazz an apology, btw.

    This is not clear at all. Can you cite the quote and make an argument?

    Dazz clearly quote mined and I used a smiley face because I think it was that he was not following the argument. You on the other hand have no excuse for the goal posts circling the field.

    This discussion started with UCD being claimed to be a fact. Let the scientism continue 🙂

  29. colewd: Common design has been the alternative theory for 150 years. It’s called special creation. The “no evidence” canard is because your hands are covering your eyes. 🙂

    Same here, I guess. I completely missed the part where you presented evidence for special creation.

  30. Corneel:

    CharlieM quotes Peter Heusser: In terms of the conventional mind-set in genetics, it is only possible to speak of a chemical explanation of life if you do not distinguish clearly between information and information carrier, a mistake of which even Crick was guilty. Because it is only what is known as an information carrier, the DNA, RNA, hormonal or other carrier of “information” which is “chemical” or material. the information content is immaterial…

    So what separates life from non-life is the transmission of genetic information? Allan will be so pleased to hear. I might even agree with that.

    Self sustained activity and the ability to reproduce itself is what distinguishes life from non-life. The transmission of genetic information is just one part of this.

    Now, I don’t presume to understand what Heusser wants to say in the ensuing paragraphs, but it looks a bit like the “where-does-all-that-information-come-from” gambit we have seen coming from IDers. What is your opinion on the idea that natural selection is what puts that information in the genomes of organisms?

    He is pointing out, quite correctly, that information is not dependent on the medium that transmits it.

    Natural selection is a determining factor in which, out of a variety of information carriers, continues through the generations. The information is already in existence.

  31. OMagain: Nobody knows how to do that, however.

    Would it be possible for you to write an extension to the paper that shows how they should have correctly included the mechanism of design regarding the improbability of new cell types?

    Yes, that’s basically what I asked colewd.

    Corneel: Same here, I guess. I completely missed the part where you presented evidence for special creation.

    colewd,
    you said:

    The improbability of new cell types in the paper shows the mechanism chosen in the paper is a non starter. The comparative mechanism should be design which handles the improbability problem of new cell types.

    And you seem to have ignored my question regarding how one would go about doing that.

    Did you ignore me because as Corneel points out you’ve not provided any evidence for special creation?

    If you are unable to provide evidence for special creation, or design, then when you say: The comparative mechanism should be design which handles the improbability problem of new cell types. you actually know that such is impossible?

    You are asking for that which you know to be impossible?

    So, would you mind getting us started by showing how if the comparative mechanism is design how it handles the improbability problem of new cell types?

    Or admit that when you said:

    colewd: Thanks for the discussion but not worth the time. The improbability of new cell types in the paper shows the mechanism chosen in the paper is a non starter. The comparative mechanism should be design which handles the improbability problem of new cell types.

    You knew that was impossible.

    If it’s possible simply write the first paragraph….

  32. Allan Miller: ‘course, the information in DNA is definitely of the material variety – the contours and charge distributions of each strand neatly specify the complement. It’s almost magical.

    And you are also making the mistake that Heusser pointed out. DNA is the carrier.

  33. colewd: How does reproduction alone explain new features?

    How does ‘design’?

    Oh, of course. They were designed. Ktnxbi.

  34. Corneel,

    Same here, I guess. I completely missed the part where you presented evidence for special creation.

    To put it in the vernacular of evolution the evidence is overwhelming. Start here:

    http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/article01036.html

    Genes not following the tree is evidence of special creation. This evidence will become more convincing as the gene databases mature. The new features in species is also evidence of special creation. As is the same feature with different gene sets throughout the tree is evidence. Now, how does the Bible back up this evidence?

  35. CharlieM: DNA is the carrier.

    How do you answer Upright Biped’s ‘conundrum’, out of interest?

    In short, how was the original system set up?

  36. colewd:
    You are labeling the Bible a fantasy. This is an argument from ignorance.There are a lot of reasons to take this book very seriously and I would be happy to work through this if you are willing.

    It’s fantasy Bill. Otherwise we would know otherwise and we’d be having a very different discussion.

    colewd:
    Its not about landing its about a complete tested hypothesis that takes all the data into account.

    It’s both. Evolution suggest common descent at least between some species. From that, again as Darwin intuited, if we take the inference further back we should land at “one or a few” original forms. Further examination of what’s known about every life form we have examined suggests that there’s UCD, at least for those life forms. The commonalities and compatibilities, like the common genetic code, shared informational molecules, with the very same chiralities, as well as the examination of apparent exceptions, confirm the hypothesis.

    colewd:
    This is what Koonin realizes is a challenge. We have an inference based on similarities….hard stop.The fact claim is scientism.

    Bullshit Bill. Koonin and Wolf kind of looked at protein similarity only, and they do say so. The reason why they end up saying that the evidence from comparative genomics was overwhelming, because that evidence does not consist on protein sequence similarity alone.

    colewd:
    The difference is not me and my siblings its between me and a plant :-). Explaining a plane can fly a 100 ft does not explain it can fly to the moon.

    You’re missing the point. Try and focus: you’re saying that UCD does not explain the differences, I’m saying there’s no reason it should explain them. You share parents with your siblings, common descent, does that by itself explain your differences? Do you expect that to explain your differences? It’s a simple question Bill. Should common parents explain the differences between you and your siblings?

  37. Alan Fox: Wrong that you have complained that no-one has addressed your claim that William Paley made an excellent argument?

    Yes. “No one lately”. That’s different.

    Alan Fox: Paley has no relevance to evolutionary biology because, writing at the dawn of the nineteenth century, he had no concept of biology as it exists 200 years later.

    Wrong. We DO keep the best ideas from the past regardless how old they are. Make your case if you think anything modern invalidates Paley. But make sure to double-check the objections already discussed in the OP.

    Corneel: All matter has internal chemical properties that can guide self-organisation in a very similar way to that observed in living beings.

    And there’s exactly zero evidence for this nonsense.

  38. DNA_Jock: Corneel,

    Ah, yes, the old “the information for these structures is not present in the DNA” gambit. My guess is that Heusser is not sufficiently familiar with the activity known as ‘baking‘.

    Neither Heusser nor I are denying that information is present in the DNA. It is present in the same way that the information in your post is present in the pixels of the screen you are using. Of course it is also present in memory circuits of your device and in my laptop and in the devices of any other person who opens it. You could have transmitted the same information audibly by phone, by Morse code or even by semaphore if you were so inclined.

  39. Corneel: If phylogenetic inferences are based on similarity, then why does it group cats and guppies to the exclusion of sharks and lamprey?

    Already addresses this: “phylogenetic inferences” is bullshit, hence not worth discussing.

    Corneel: Stop squirming Nonlin. Answer the question.

    What question? Formulate in terms of what we’re discussing, not what you want to hear. And no self-referenced “of course evolution” crap.

  40. colewd: This discussion started with UCD being claimed to be a fact. Let the scientism continue 🙂

    They have you on the defensive because, like mainstream ID-stas, you accept half of their nonsensical concepts like “micro-evolution”.

    But keep in mind that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, in “evolution” is made up. So next time ask yourself and ask them about their “fitness function” or how “natural selection” will work in one case or another, or why on earth would there be something like “convergent evolution”?

  41. Corneel: I suppose the only solution is that you actually commit to a position, and clearly articulate what that position is.

    Aren’t my essays clear and strong commitments with well formulated arguments and thousands of questions/comments answered? Meanwhile, where are your essays addressing various topics in details with clearly formulated (and numbered and highlighted) arguments? And where are your Pro/Con notes documenting your clear understanding of the opposite viewpoint?

  42. There is a video of a talk by Prof. Dr. Peter Heusser entitled “Is there a chemical or genetic explanation of life? – A closer look on causality and agency in modern biology”, here

    The quality isn’t great but it does give more detail than the excerpt I posted.

  43. In the aforementioned video he points out that the information to assemble a naked protein is not contained in the DNA especially if alternative splicing is necessary. The information is contained in the final messenger RNA that is used in the production of the protein.

  44. CharlieM:[quoting DNA_Jock]

    Ah, yes, the old “the information for these structures is not present in the DNA” gambit. My guess is that Heusser is not sufficiently familiar with the activity known as ‘baking‘.

    Neither Heusser nor I are denying that information is present in the DNA.

    To be explicit here: the information for these structures [i.e. “higher-level structures, shapes, arrangements and functions of the cell organelles, cells, organs and organ systems and for the complex relationships and coordination of the whole organism“] IS present in the DNA, according to Charlie.
    Good to know, but I think Heusser disagrees with us. That’s okay, he’s basing his conclusion on a fallacy.

  45. CharlieM: In the aforementioned video he points out that the information to assemble a naked protein is not contained in the DNA especially if alternative splicing is necessary. The information is contained in the final messenger RNA that is used in the production of the protein.

    Oh dear. That is in direct contradiction to what you just wrote.
    You have fallen foul of the same fallacy, sadly.
    I assume you also apply this “logic” to protein folding, too.

  46. colewd: Genes not following the tree is evidence of special creation. […] The new features in species is also evidence of special creation. As is the same feature with different gene sets throughout the tree is evidence.

    Even if I were to indulge you by accepting that you have shown these things to be the case, none of them constitutes positive evidence for special creation. You’ve just collected some observations which you imagine to be troublesome for evolutionary theory (I don’t think they are). Where did you show that a Creator was the most likely source for those new genes and new features?

  47. colewd:
    Genes not following the tree is evidence of special creation.

    Depending on what that means, genes not following the tree would be evidence of differential duplications and loses of genes, for example (among other possible events). We cannot know until the genes are further examined.

    colewd:
    This evidence will become more convincing as the gene databases mature.

    Interestingly, along my career I’ve seen exceptional patterns become same-old ones as genome databases mature. The exceptional case becoming evidence of previous mistakes, rather than actual exceptions.

    colewd:
    The new features in species is also evidence of special creation.

    Nope. They’re evidence of divergence and natural selection.

    colewd:
    As is the same feature with different gene sets throughout the tree is evidence.

    Of convergent evolution. Evidence that there’s more than one potential solution to biological problems available for evolution than creationists would like to admit.

    colewd:
    Now, how does the Bible back up this evidence?

    It doesn’t. The bible was written by primitive societies that had no idea about genes or evolution.

  48. CharlieM: He is pointing out, quite correctly, that information is not dependent on the medium that transmits it.

    I have had multiple DNA sequences on my computer, but they didn’t express, nor replicate. So I think you are wrong.

    CharlieM: Natural selection is a determining factor in which, out of a variety of information carriers, continues through the generations. The information is already in existence.

    During my last night at the casino, I informed the croupier that he didn’t need to spin the roulette wheel, since the information of me winning was already present.

    He didn’t agree 😕

  49. DNA_Jock:

    Neither Heusser nor I are denying that information is present in the DNA.

    To be explicit here: the information for these structures [i.e. “higher-level structures, shapes, arrangements and functions of the cell organelles, cells, organs and organ systems and for the complex relationships and coordination of the whole organism“] IS present in the DNA, according to Charlie.
    Good to know, but I think Heusser disagrees with us. That’s okay, he’s basing his conclusion on a fallacy.

    No, not according to me. You are mistaken about that.

  50. Nonlin.org: Wrong.

    Haha!

    We DO keep the best ideas from the past regardless how old they are.

    Indeed. Flint-knappers of today have learned much from the past. Techniques stretch back two million years. Water ran downhill, then, too.

    Make your case if you think anything modern invalidates Paley.

    Paley was a theologian – not a biologist. He made no contribution to biology as far as I am aware.

Leave a Reply